Judge summons Hindu gods to court

PATNA , India (UPI) -- A judge in India has put out a call for two Hindu gods to "appear before the court personally" to help find an answer to a property dispute.

Judge Sunil Kumar Singh has taken out advertisements in newspapers ordering the gods Ram and Hanuman to testify before the court, the BBC reported Friday.

The 20-year-old dispute revolves around 1.4 acres of land that host two temples, one dedicated to each of the two gods referred to by Singh.

Temple priest Manmohan Pathak claims to own the land that houses the holy buildings, but locals claim the plot belongs to the gods themselves.

"You failed to appear in court despite notices sent by a peon and later through registered post. You are hereby directed to appear before the court personally," Singh's notice said.

The judge earlier sent notices to the gods, but they were returned due to incomplete address information.

Bijan Rawani, a lawyer for locals who claim the land belongs to the gods, said it is important to get input on the case from the deities.

This has been tried before . . . unsuccessfully.

United States ex rel. Gerald Mayo v. Satan and His Staff, 54 F.R.D. 282 (W.D. PA 1971)

WEBER, District Judge.
Plaintiff, alleging jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 241, 28 U.S.C. § 1343, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 prays for leave to file a complaint for violation of his civil rights in forma pauperis. He alleges that Satan has on numerous occasions caused plaintiff misery and unwarranted threats, against the will of plaintiff, that Satan has placed deliberate obstacles in his path and has caused plaintiff's downfall.
Plaintiff alleges that by reason of these acts Satan has deprived him of his constitutional rights.
We feel that the application to file and proceed in forma pauperis must be denied. Even if plaintiff's complaint reveals a prima facie recital of the infringement of the civil rights of a citizen of the United States, the Court has serious doubts that the complaint reveals a cause of action upon which relief can be granted by the court. We question whether plaintiff may obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant in this judicial district. The complaint contains no allegation of residence in this district. While the official reports disclose no case where this defendant has appeared as defendant there is an unofficial account of a trial in New Hampshire where this defendant filed an action of mortgage foreclosure as plaintiff. The defendant in that action was represented by the preeminent advocate of that day, and raised the defense that the plaintiff was a foreign prince with no standing to sue in an American Court. This defense was overcome by overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Whether or not this would raise an estoppel in the present case we are unable to determine at this time.
If such action were to be allowed we would also face the question of whether it may be maintained as a class action. It appears to meet the requirements of Fed.R. of Civ.P. 23 that the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, there are questions of law and fact common to the class, and the claims of the representative party is typical of the claims of the class. We cannot now determine if the representative party will fairly protect the interests of the class.
We note that the plaintiff has failed to include with his complaint the required form of instructions for the United States Marshal for directions as to service of process.
For the foregoing reasons we must exercise our discretion to refuse the prayer of plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis.
It is ordered that the complaint be given a miscellaneous docket number and leave to proceed in forma pauperis be denied.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.